Douglass v R [2020] NSWCCA 284

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Douglass v R [2020] NSWCCA 284 Hearing dates: 12 August 2020 Date of orders: 02 November 2020 Decision date: 02 November 2020 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Johnson J at [6]; Rothman J at [46] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Leave granted under Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to argue the failure to leave manslaughter to the jury; (3) Ground 4 of the appeal against conviction allowed; (4) All other grounds of appeal are dismissed; (5) The conviction of the applicant on the charge that between 6 August 2016 and 12 August 2016, at Lithgow in the State of New South Wales, she did murder Christopher Whiteley is quashed; (6) The indictment presented on 19 November 2018 and/or the aforesaid charge of murder, is subject to a retrial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales; (7) The matter is listed in the Supreme Court Arraignment list on 6 November 2020. Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against conviction – applicant found guilty of murder – whether verdict unreasonable – whether error in directions on causation – whether trial judge erred in admitting admissions influenced by violence or oppression – whether trial judge erred in failing to leave an alternative verdict of manslaughter – appeal allowed on alternative verdict issue and otherwise dismissed – retrial ordered CRIME – sentence appeal – various grounds not considered because conviction appeal allowed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23 Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 4 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 54, 56, 59, 81, 84, 85, 90, 189 Cases Cited: Basanovic v R (2018) 100 NSWLR 840; [2018] NSWCCA 246 Brown v R [2006] NSWCCA 395 Burns v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 334; [2012] HCA 35 Handlen v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 282; [2011] HCA 51 Hoskins v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 207 James v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 475; [2014] HCA 6 Lane v R (2013) 241 A Crim R 321; [2013] NSWCCA 317 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Martinez v R; Tortell v R [2019] NSWCCA 153 Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75 Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; [1971] HCA 20 Perish, Anthony v R; Perish, Andrew v R; Lawton, Matthew v R (2016) 92 NSWLR 161; [2016] NSWCCA 89 Picken v R [2007] NSWCCA 319 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v Blackman [2018] NSWSC 395 R v Downs (1985) 3 NSWLR 312 R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527; [2005] NSWCCA 385 R v Nguyen (2010) 242 CLR 491; [2010] HCA 38 R v Rasic [2009] NSWCCA 202 R v Spiteri-Ahern; R v Barber; R v Zraika (No 10) [2017] NSWSC 1380 R v Tarantino (No. 6) [2019] NSWSC 1174 Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 Swan v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 385; [2020] HCA 11 Texts Cited: Australian Law Reform Commission, Interim Report on Evidence (1985) No 26 Australian Law Reform Commission, Final Report on Evidence (1987) No 38 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ammie Douglass (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Francis with M Voleynik (Applicant) E Balodis (Respondent)